A comparison of police pre‐employment training and education in the U.K
and U.S.A
Paper presented at the 4th Annual Conference of the Higher Education Forum for Police Learning and Development (POLCON 4), Canterbury Christ Church University 3rd‐ 4th September 2013. Sergeant, Richard Heslop, West Yorkshire Police, U.K 1 Introduction In the last five years, in England and Wales, there has been a growing interest in police pre‐employment training and education. The planned transition from the police service’s traditional post‐employment training model to a pre‐join 2 approach is being driven by economic factors as well as by an aim to professionalise the police (Neyroud, 2011; Winsor, 2012). Yet when examined from broader and international perspectives, self‐funded pre‐entry training for other professions is nothing new and in other countries such as the U.S.A pre‐entry training for policing has existed for decades.Although the subject of pre‐join qualifications featured in two recent Home Office sponsored reports into aspects of policing in England and Wales (Neyroud, 2011, Winsor, 2012), there have been few academic articles about police pre‐employment training in the police studies scholarly literature (Pepper & McGrath, 2010; Blakemore & Simpson, 2010 ), even less from an international comparative perspective. This paper adds to the extant literature and compares emerging approaches to police pre‐ employment training in the U.K with the more established system of police pre‐join training in the U.S.A.
The paper is informed by a review of current programmes, governance arrangements and policies relating to police entry‐level training in the U.K and empirical research conducted by the author in the U.S.A.3 Amidst the backdrop of ‘austerity policing’, the paper discusses the changing national landscape of police entry‐level training governance and qualifications in England and Wales and provides some up‐to‐ date information about trends in sworn officer recruitment and approaches to training. It is argued that whilst, in recent years, a market for the provision police training and education has become established in England and Wales, uncertainties exist surrounding the future specifications for pre‐employment training and qualifications in this country. In contrast, a mixed‐market model of police entry‐level training has evolved over several decades in America, which reflects its diverse and radically decentralised system 1 The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of West Yorkshire Police. Email: r.heslop@fulbrightmail.org 2 In this paper, the terms pre‐employment, pre‐join and pre‐entry training or qualifications are used interchangeably. 3This research was conducted under the auspices of a Fulbright Scholarship.
of policing. In the U.S.A nearly half of all law enforcement entry‐level training takes place in police academies operated by academic institutions, such as universities, colleges and technical schools. These institutions are certified and closely regulated by state authorities and they seek to replicate the curriculum and approach of conventional police academies. The paper concludes that there are some lessons to be learnt from the American approach which may help inform the future development of police pre‐ join training in this country.
Police entry‐level training in England and Wales
For most of the period since the Second World War police recruits in England and Wales were trained at Home Office governed District Training Centres (DTCs). In 2005 the Home Office ceased to administer initial training to all police forces in this country apart from the London Metropolitan Police. 4 Individual constabularies were allowed more autonomy in delivering police entry‐level training under a broad framework called the Initial Police Learning and Development Programme or IPLDP. Some constabularies responded by keeping the same training but delivering it in local venues; elsewhere attempts were made to train and educate officers differently by developing partnerships with further and higher education providers (Heslop, 2011).
Post‐employment training model
However, the majority of initial learning programmes continue to operate under a post‐ employment training model, whereby police recruits become sworn officers shortly after joining the service and undertake a two year training period funded by their constabulary. Post‐employment training is extensive and costly (Blakemore & Simpson, 2010) and by 2008 a number of constabularies and colleges and universities had begun to develop pre‐join training and education programmes.5
Pre‐employment training model
Although it will be seen that there are a range of different approaches to police pre‐ employment training and education, the core concept is that prospective police recruits are required to self‐finance and complete aspects of initial police training, obtain an academic qualification and/or undertake some other form of work experience before they can apply to join the police. According to Skills for Justice (2009), there are several advantages to police pre‐employment training programmes, which include: Financial savings for police constabularies as a significant proportion of the cost of training is shifted to individuals. 4 This followed a damning inspection report into the provision of police training in England and Wales (see HMIC 2002), along with public concerns following the broadcast of the BBC Panorama programme The Secret Policeman (2001), which exposed evidence of police racism at a DTC (see McLaughlin (2007: ch, 6). 5 These included: Surrey Police (in collaboration with Portsmouth University), Lancashire Police (and the University of Central Lancashire) and South Wales Police (and the University of Glamorgan) (see Blakemore & Simpson, 2010, Police, 2010, Police Review, 2010).
Policing will be brought into line with other professions, specifically teaching, nursing and other health service professional roles.
A lower dropout rate of recruits post‐employment, as they will have a clear idea as to what operational policing is about prior to recruitment.
A potential increase in the pool of police volunteers (i.e. special constables, though this depends on the pre‐employment training model adopted).
Police recruitment and training in an age of austerity
By 2010, however, with the election of a new Conservative‐led coalition government in the U.K, committed to carrying out further reform of the police, together with the economic crisis impacting on constabulary budgets, the development of police recruitment and training programmes became subject to contradictory forces. The ‘emergency budget’ of June 2010 announced that between 2010 and 2013/14 there will be a 25% cut in central government funding to police constabularies (HMIC, 2010), and Chief Constables were challenged to make efficiency savings, whilst maintaining the performance of their organisations (Audit Commission, 2010). 6 In many respects, this was the right time for police forces and training and education providers to accelerate the pace of developing pre‐join programmes. Yet, with around 80% of police budgets being accounted for by staff costs (HMIC, 2010), Chief Officers responded to the financial crisis by taking measures to reduce their workforces (HMIC, 2011) including implementing a freeze on recruiting regular officers.7 Although the suspension of recruiting provided some constabularies and national police learning and development bodies with the time and incentive to develop pre‐join schemes (CoP, 2013a), the environment became less certain for potential external providers of police training in the further and higher education sectors.
However, the financial crisis is not the only factor currently influencing police training policy. Notwithstanding the fact that in the previous two decades the British police service has been subjected to significant centrally driven reform and ‘modernization’ (Savage, 2007; Flemming & McLaughlin, 2012), the Conservative Party came to power in 2010 with a commitment to undertake further radical reforms of the police (Herbert, 2007; Home Office, 2010). Whilst some of the reforms are beyond the scope of this paper, it is Home Office’s stated position that police employees, particularly during the (1997‐2010) period of the previous New Labour administration, have become ‘disempowered professionals’, hence there is a pressing need to address issues of police leadership and professionalisation (Home Office, 2010). As part of these reforms, the government commissioned two reviews into aspects of policing in England and Wales, whose scope would include examining the case for police pre‐join qualifications. 6 Police constabularies in England and Wales receive between 50% and 90% of their funding from central government with most of the remainder coming from local council tax (see HMIC, 2010). 7 According to HMIC (2011), its is estimated that between March 2010 to March 2015 the police workforce in England and Wales will reduce by 16,200 police officers, 1800 PCSOs and 16,100 police staff – a total of 34,100 employees. The Audit Commission (2010) estimate that the average cost of a police staff member is approximately £32,000, compared to a police officer cost of about £54,000.
Neyroud Review of Police Leadership and Training and Winsor Review of Police Officer and Staff Remuneration and Conditions
In his report into his Review of Police Leadership and Training, Peter Neyroud (2011), put forward a strong case for police education. Whilst Neyroud accepted the economic rationale for police pre‐employment education and qualifications the focus of his report centred on the aim of professionalising the police service. Although Neyroud acknowledged that progress had been made to implement pre‐join schemes in some police areas in England and Wales, he recommended that in order to ensure consistency, a national pre‐join Police Initial Qualification (PIQ) should be implemented and that this should be equivalent to an academic Level 4 qualification. 8 To help deliver this qualification (and police training and education more broadly) Neyroud envisaged a central role for higher education (HE) and further education (FE) providers.
In 2012, Tom Winsor (now Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary) published his report into his Review of Police Officer and Staff Remuneration and Conditions, which also concluded that there is a need to introduce a requirement for police pre‐employment qualifications. Whereas Neyroud had argued that the PIQ should be at Level 4, Winsor recommended that individuals seeking to become police officers should have either a Level 3 qualification or some other nationally recognised police qualification.
Although at first sight the debate surrounding the level of the PIQ may seem inconsequential, there is, in fact, much at stake here, particularly for HE and FE providers who are trying to establish which direction the police training policy wind is blowing, in order to plan ahead and develop programmes and partnerships. A Level 4 or 5 PIQ would launch police pre‐join education into the orbit of the HE sector, whereas a Level 3 award more likely leaves it predominantly in the realm of commercial training companies, FE colleges and police training academies. 9
It is anticipated that any uncertainties surrounding the future specification for police pre‐employment qualifications in England and Wales will be resolved by the nascent College of Policing (CoP), but presently a range of different approaches for pre‐ join training and education are emerging. The following sections discuss the changing national landscape of police entry‐level training governance and qualifications in this country, and provide some up‐to‐date information on trends in sworn officer recruitment and approaches to training.
Police entry‐level training, governance, qualifications and programmes
Scholarly accounts of the structure of police learning and development governance in England and Wales often begin with the observation that there is no one single body 8 This refers to Levels on the Qualification and Credit Framework (QCF). Level 3 is equivalent to A levels. Level 4 is equivalent to an individual successfully completing the first year of a two year foundation degree programme. Level 5 equates to a full foundation degree. 9 The Higher Education Forum for Learning and Development has recently recommended that Level 4 should be established as a minimum standard for all policing roles (Home Affairs Select Committee, 2013:27).
which has overall responsibility for police training. Whilst this remains the case, the governance arrangements relating to police learning and development are currently in a state of transition. The starting point for any examination of these arrangements are the Chief Constables of the 43 territorial police constabularies in England and Wales who are ultimately responsible for the provision of training in their organisations. In addition, there are several other important actors who operate at the national level and who have an influence over police training provision and policy. These include, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), HMIC, Skills for Justice, and most recently and notably the CoP, whose remit will be discussed in more detail below.
The dynamics of police workforce resourcing and training at the local level are also affected by the introduction (in 2012) of directly elected Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) which ‘represents one of the most significant reforms of police governance for over 50 years’ (Loveday, 2013:22). PCCs are now the primary budget holders in 41 police forces across England and Wales 10 and they are also responsible for developing a strategy for local policing in their areas. As Crawford (2013: 21) argues, ‘while policing has always been embedded in political and normative choices about priorities and deployment of resources and the nature of social order, since November 2012 it has become more explicitly politicised in terms of party politics…’ At bottom, the outsourcing of portions of police training, (including entry‐level) to universities, colleges and commercial training providers can be regarded as part of the process of the increasing ‘privatisation of policing’ which has been well documented by police scholars in recent years (Button, 2002; Johnson, 1992). PCCs are now faced with some difficult choices in relation to outsourcing and privatisation (Crawford, 2013) (including choices relating to police training) and it is plausible to suggest that some of their decisions will be based on party political/ideological lines. 11
The CoP was established in 2012 to take over a number of training and development roles that were the responsibility of the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA). 12 Although the new institution has been ambitiously branded as the ‘professional body’ for the police service in England and Wales, it is fair to say that the College is still in a state of transition and some of its responsibilities are, as yet, unclear (Home Affairs Select Committee, 2013). The College has a remit to set standards for the police service on training, development, skills and qualifications, including those relating to police initial and pre‐join programmes. Precursor bodies to the CoP such as the NPIA and Centrex also had a similar remit in relation to learning and development programmes and qualifications, yet there were ‘inconsistencies between forces and lack of strong governance’. 13 In recent years the provision of police entry‐level training has become fragmented (Heslop, 2010). Although the Home Affairs Select Committee 10 Separate arrangements exist in London. 11 Crawford (2013) notes, for example, that 78 % of Labour PCC candidates adopted an ‘anti‐privatisation stance’. 12 The NPIA (formally Centrex 2002‐2007) was abolished as part of the coalition Government’s so called ‘bonfire of the quangos’. 13 Evidence from the Police Federation of England and Wales, (quoted in Home Affairs Select Committee 2013: 26).
(2013:25) has recently directed that ‘standards must be enforced and must be nationwide’ it remains to be seen if the new governance arrangements are configured with sufficient power and influence to make this happen.
The arena of police entry‐level training and qualifications in England and Wales will provide an interesting case study of how the new governance arrangements operate. In terms of programmes and qualifications, the CoP ‘owns’ and is responsible for maintaining the police Initial Learning Curriculum (CoP, 2013).14 As indicated above, since 2005 the IPLDP is the required learning programme undertaken by all trainee regular police constables. Since 2012 the (Level 3) Diploma in Policing has been the minimum qualification to be achieved by officers undertaking the IPLDP.
The Certificate in Knowledge of Policing (CKP) is a new qualification (also at Level 3) which formally accredits the knowledge and understanding units of the Diploma in Policing. In 2012 the CoP introduced an Approved Provider Scheme to licence colleges, universities and commercial training providers to deliver the CKP to students on a pre‐ join basis. 15
Current trends in sworn officer recruitment and training
Following a three to four year period of inactivity discussed above, many police constabularies are currently recruiting sworn officers or they are planning to do so in the near future (CoP, 2013a; 2013b). In addition, there has been some recent developments in the type of police pre‐join programmes being delivered by police forces, commercial training providers and the HE and FE sector. Although a diverse, mixed‐market approach to the provision of police entry‐level training has emerged in England and Wales it is possible to discern a number of trends.
First, it is important to note that the majority of police constabularies who are currently recruiting sworn officers are training them under a traditional post‐ employment model. However, in order to make financial savings and reduce the amount of time when student officers are a ‘non‐deployable’ resource, a number of these locally delivered initial learning programmes have been ‘streamlined’ to durations not experienced since the early 1980s. 16
A further recent trend which has been influenced by austerity policing relates to the pool from which regular officers are being drawn. As part of the measures to reduce and restructure their workforce, several constabularies are currently only recruiting
14 The Initial Learning Curriculum defines the learning outcomes for three separate learning programmes. These are: IPLDP (Regular Police Constables), ILS4C (Special Constables) and PCSOs (Police Community Support Officers), see CoP (2013a). 15 At the time of writing there are 5 approved providers and 15 providers undertaking the approval process. Approved providers currently pay an annual fee of £8000 to the CoP for the licence to deliver the CKP. 16 For, example, in West Yorkshire Police the duration of the IPLDP has recently been streamlined from 20 weeks to 14 weeks. In 1988 the author joined West Yorkshire Police and underwent an initial training programme of 17 weeks duration.
regular officers from a pool of existing employees (i.e. police staff, PCSOs, Special Constables).
As for the CKP it is, as yet, too early to tell how extensively the new qualification will be used on a national basis and whether or not it can be judged to be a success. The Metropolitan Police Service , which in terms of numbers of employees, is the largest police force in England and Wales, has recently announced that all regular recruits to the force will be required to have attained the CKP on a pre‐join basis from a commercial provider . At the time of writing only a small number of provincial police forces have indicated that they are planning to adopt the same approach as the Met (CoP 2013b); though some constabularies are now delivering their own in‐house CKP style pre‐join programmes. 17 The Home Affairs Select Committee (2013:27) has recently recommended that the ‘requirement for the [CKP] should be uniformly applied to all forces to establish a new set of national standards’.
At the other end of the police education spectrum, there are a steadily increasing number of HE and FE institutions who have become (or are planning to become) involved in delivering degree level policing related programmes, often in collaboration with local constabularies. Some of the programmes, such as the ones at the University of Chester and the University of Central Lancashire, can also involve the students gaining vocational experience by serving as a Special Constable.
Summary
Taking stock, it can be argued that police entry‐level training and education in England and Wales is currently in a state of transition. At the national level of policing governance there is a discourse of the need for professionalisation and an ambition to shift significant parts of the provision of training (including entry‐level) to HE, FE and commercial providers. The intended change from the police service’s traditional post‐ employment model to a pre‐employment approach is an important part of this strategy. At the local level, however, there are a diverse range of approaches to initial police training and these are shaped by local circumstances including the preferences of individual chief officers and PCCs. At one end of the spectrum, there are some impressive degree level police/criminal justice pre‐join programmes being delivered by universities and colleges, most of which involve collaborations with police constabularies, which are along the lines of the police professional education courses envisaged by ‘police visionaries’ (Savage, 2007: 129) such as Neyroud. At the other end of the spectrum, however, it is worth reiterating that the majority of police constabularies, who are currently recruiting constables, are training them in‐house under a traditional post‐join model. In some cases, the duration of these initial learning programmes has been cut so that they comply with the bare minimum curriculum requirements set by the CoP. Somewhere in between these poles there are a range of approaches to police entry‐level/pre‐join training such as the CKP qualification, which is currently being delivered predominantly by providers in the private sector. Moving
17 Sussex Police, for example, require their applicants for a position as a constable to successfully
forward, it remains to be seen if the CoP will seek to mandate a more common approach to the provision of entry‐level training in this country and if so, whether or not it has power to achieve this.
Researching police pre‐join training in the U.S.A
Having then examined the provision of police initial education in England and Wales the following sections shift the focus to police entry‐level training in the U.S.A. In some respects, comparing the emerging U.K model with approaches to police pre‐join training in America seems appropriate. After all, the professional framework of policing which emerged in the U.S.A in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was based on the ‘Peelian’ model first developed in the U.K (Travis & Langworthy, 2008). Moreover, the fact that police pre‐join training has existed in some states in America for several decades is often cited as one of the reasons why pre‐employment training can operate in England and Wales (Neyroud 2011, Winsor, 2012). However, as other policing scholars have pointed out, it can be naïve to assume that policing strategies and approaches can be transported from one continent to another without sufficient regard for societal and cultural differences (Brogden, 2004). Whilst the modern system of policing in the U.S.A may well have been based on the British model, it will be seen below that it has evolved over the last two centuries in its own distinctive way. Although there is a significant body of literature which explains that system and its evolution (see, for example, Cordner, 2012; Travis & Langworthy, 2008), there are few academic publications relating to police training in the U.S.A, and particularly its system of pre‐join training. Consequently, in 2012 a small scale empirical research project was conducted in the U.S.A by the author, with the aim of researching approaches to pre‐join training in that country.
Methodology
The empirical research was based on a mixed method qualitative data collection strategy. In terms of methods, this primarily involved conducting observations over a three month period at police training establishments mainly in the states of Ohio and Kentucky, as well as interviewing and consulting with individuals and groups on a country wide basis (including students, trainers, academics, police practitioners etc) about police training in America. The research is also informed by a review of relevant literature relating to policing in the U.S.A, including publically available reports and statistics.
Structure of U.S policing
Perhaps the most challenging methodological issues which confront anyone setting out to research almost any aspect of policing in America relate to the sheer size of the country (the third largest in the world in both population and geographic size) and the fact that it has an extremely diverse and fragmented police system (Cordner, 2012). The U.S constitution, in place since 1787, establishes a federal system of government with relatively few powers reserved for national government and many powers delegated to the states (Cordner, 2012). One consequence of this federal system, with a strong
emphasis on local governance, is that the U.S. has over 18,000 separate law enforcement agencies, most of them local and small. Information published by the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS, 2011a:2) shows that in 2008 the agencies included: 12,501 local police departments 3,063 sheriffs’ offices 50 primary state law enforcement agencies 1,733 special jurisdiction agencies 638 other agencies, primarily county constable offices in Texas.
To begin to grasp the full picture, however, it is necessary to include the approximately 73 Federal law enforcement agencies (BJS, 2011: 2).18 Though it may seem surprising from a U.K perspective, it is probably not possible to determine, at any one point in time, the exact number of law enforcement agencies in the U.S.A. To begin with, about half of all agencies employ less than 10 full‐time officers and agencies of this size often go out of existence or merge, whilst new departments are formed, on an almost daily basis. Although historically this has always been so, the economic crisis which has also been impacting on policing in the U.S.A since 2008 is leading to downsizing and rationalisation (COPS, 2011; PERF, 2010).
Although many U.K based police researchers and practitioners will be aware of some of the major agencies in American law enforcement, such as the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), it is perhaps not always appreciated that these large and relatively well resourced agencies are not necessarily representative of the majority of policing organisations in the U.S.A. As previously stated, 50% of all police departments in America employ less than 10 officers and almost 75% have less than 25 sworn police.
Police entry‐level training and education in the U.S.A
Consequently, a mixed market model of police entry‐level training and education has evolved in the U.S.A which reflects its diverse and decentralised system of policing. Police academies exist in every state and at the federal level and each state has an agency which certifies and closely regulates police academies and their programmes.19 According to the most recently published statistics from the 2006 Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies (CLETA), a total of 648 state and local law enforcement academies were providing basic training to entry‐level recruits in the U.S.A (BJS, 2009).
Of these, a total of 292, (45%) were operated by an academic institution, such as a college, a university, or a technical school. Some of these institutions deliver programmes for other public safety professionals, such as the Fire Department, whilst others specialise in law enforcement. Whilst the majority of the programmes are operated as stand alone police basic training courses, others form part of a higher
18 The largest being the U.S Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which employs some 36,000 officers. 19
qualification such as a criminal justice degree. Many of these campus based academies deliver the full basic police training curriculum, including, for example, instruction in firearms, defensive tactics and driver training.
Municipal police departments were the second largest operators of police academies, accounting for 22% of the total. Sheriff’s offices operated 57 academies (9%), and state police and highway patrol agencies operated 44 academies (7%). Finally, State Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) 20 Commissions, the agencies typically responsible for certifying law enforcement officers in each state, operated 25 academies (4%) nationwide. Post employment training There are two ways for an individual to enter a police academy and undertake a basic police training programme in the U.S.A. The first entry route is to be recruited and employed by a law enforcement agency and attend an academy on a post‐employment basis. Many large and mid‐sized law enforcement agencies operate their own academies and send officers to their academy or an academy operated by another organisation.
Pre‐employment training
The second entry route is for an individual to self‐fund their basic police training pre‐ employment, and to be admitted to an academy through a system which is commonly referred to in the U.S.A as open enrolment. Many academies and particularly those operated by colleges and universities accept individuals from both routes on to their programmes. Students applying to attend an academy through open enrolment are required to satisfy a number of entry requirements (i.e. minimum educational qualifications, fitness test, driving licence, criminal record checks, etc) and pay their own fees (normally around $5000).
Some of the open enrolment programmes are delivered full‐time, whilst students can also attend open enrolment police training programmes at some academies on a part‐time basis (i.e. evenings and weekends). All academies must comply with statutory requirements (topics, hours, facilities and processes) in order to be approved by the state regulating authority. With such tight regulation of all aspects of the courses, including qualifications and competence of the Academy Commander and instructors, these campus based institutions rely heavily on the experience of serving and/or former law enforcement practitioners to help deliver the programmes. Indeed they could not function without them. Attendance at any of these approved academies will provide the student with the same opportunity to obtain a certificate of peace officer basic training which they may use as a way to market themselves to a law enforcement agency promoting the fact that the agency will not incur any training expense on the basic training level. With respect to the larger departments, which have access to their own academies, it is up to
20 Within U.S Law enforcement the terms peace officer and law enforcement officer are often used
the local Chief of Police to determine if recruits who have already obtained the certificate need to re‐take any or the entire curriculum at their own academy. While this is not an option for smaller agencies, there is evidence of some duplication in the system, whereby some larger agencies who recruit individuals who have already completed pre‐join training, still require them to undergo there own basic training programmes delivered at their own academies. The reasons for this are unclear, but could be attributable to distrust or lack of confidence in the state regulated system or even the urge to retain control, which as Adlam (2002), has argued, is strongly embedded in the police psyche. Summary of findings Although the provision of police entry‐level training and education in the U.S.A reflects the diverse and radically decentralised structure of its system of policing, it is possible to identify some patterns and common features of that training provision and draw some conclusions about how it evolved. Leaving aside the (approximately 73) federal law enforcement agencies, responsibility for policing in the U.S.A has been delegated to the states. It therefore follows that the provision of police training and education is also overseen by authorities at the state level and although there is a mixed‐market and diverse approach, all aspects of the training are closely regulated.
Whilst it makes perfect sense for an agency such as the LAPD ‐ with a compliment of approximately 10,000 sworn officers ‐ to have its own state‐of‐the‐art police academy, this is not an option for a local police department with an establishment of 5 officers. In a country which has such a culture of commercial enterprise and self‐reliance, along with the high value placed on college education it is hardly surprising that nearly half of all police training takes place in academic institutions.
The pre‐join training delivered within academic institutions is based on the police academy model, whereby these campuses based academies replicate the curriculum and approach of ‘traditional’ police academies found in police departments. 21
Conclusion
As U.K police finances continue to be squeezed and with a discourse at the national level of policing governance of the need for the service to professionalise, it is likely that a growing number of constabularies will only look to recruit individuals who already have a policing qualification and/or prior police work experience. However, whilst currently the implementation of pre‐join training remains a mere option for many police forces in England and Wales, America’s diverse and fragmented system of policing could not function without it. Although on the face of it, police initial training in the U.S.A appears to be similarly fragmented, the training is, in fact, well organised and standardised
21 For example, most of the academies require the students to wear a form of uniform and imitation
around the police academy model and is in many ways more closely regulated and consistent than is currently the case in this country. The U.S experience shows that a mixed provision approach can work well, whereby some law enforcement agencies train officers on a post‐employment basis, whilst other rely on recruiting officers who have already successfully completed a pre‐join training programme. The U.S experience also shows that, as part of this approach, academic institutions can be very successful in delivering police pre‐employment training. A key lesson from America seems to be that the mixed‐market model works, but it requires strong regulation to achieve the reliable and consistent output that can be accepted and trusted.
Bibliography
Adlam, R (2002) Governmental Rationalities in Police Leadership: an essay exploring some of the ‘deep structure’ in police leadership praxis, Policing & Society, 12,1, pp 15‐36
Audit Commission (2010) Sustaining Value for Money in the Police Service, London Audit Commission. (BJS) Bureau of Justice Statistics (2009) State and Local Law Enforcement Training Academies, 2006, U.S. Department of Justice. (BJS) Bureau of Justice Statistics (2011a) Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2008, U.S Department of Justice.
(BJS) Bureau of Justice Statistics (2011b) Federal Law Enforcement Officers, 2008, U.S Department of Justice.
Blakemore, B. & Simpson, K. (2010) A comparison of the effectiveness of pre ‐ and post ‐ employment modes of higher education for student police officers. The Police Journal, 83, 29‐41. Button (2004) Private Policing, London, Routledge. (Cop) College of Policing (2013a) Professional Entry to Policing: Pre‐Join Strategy and Guidance (Version 1.04), London, College of Policing.
(Cop) College of Policing (2013b) Responses from Forces Recruitments Survey. CoP internal document, made available to the author.
COPS (2011) The Impact of the Economic Downturn on American Police Agencies, U.S Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office).
Cordner, G. (2012) The Architecture of U.S. Policing: Variations Among the 50 States. Police Practice & Research: An International Journal, 12, 107‐119.
Crawford, A (2013) The Clash: will policing and politics clash again as forces come under pressure to deliver more for less. How police and crime commissioners have dealt with the thorny issue of privatisation. Police, June 2013, 19‐21. Flemming, J. & McLaughlin, E. (2012) Through a different lens: researching the rise and fall of New Labour's 'confidence agenda'. Policing & Society, 22, 280‐294. (HMIC) Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (2002) Training Matters, London, HMIC. (HMIC) Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (2010) Valuing the Police: Policing in an age of austerity, London, HMIC. (HMIC) Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (2011) Adapting to Austerity, London, HMIC. Herbert, C., Keeble, O., Burley, A. & Gibbs, B. (2007) Policing for the People: Interim report of the Police Reform Task Force, London, Policy Exchange. Heslop, R. (2010) Learning Curve, Police Review , 20 August 2012, 18‐21.
Heslop, R. (2011) Reproducing police culture in a British university: An exploratory study of police foundation degrees. Police Practice & Research: An International Journal, 12, 298‐ 312.
Home Office (2010) Policing in the 21st Century: reconnecting police and the people, London, Home Office.
Johnson, L (1992) The Rebirth of Private Policing, London, Routledge.
Loveday, B (2013) Police and Crime Commissioners: the changing landscape of police governance in England and Wales: their potential impact on local accountability, police service delivery and community safety. International Journal of Police Science & Management 15 (1) 22‐29.
McLaughlin, I, (2007) The New Policing, London, Sage.
(PERF) Police Executive Research Forum (2010) Is The Economic Downturn Fundamentally Changing How We Police? Washington, Police Executive Research Forum (PERF).
Pepper, I & McGrath, R (2010) Pre‐employment Course: a partnership for success, Education &Training, 52, 245‐254
Police (2010) Early Learning Centres, Police, October 2010, 17‐19.
Police Review (2010) Higher Learning: new educational methods being rolled out to train the lucky few recruits, Police Review, 19 March 2012, 22‐23.
Travis, L., F & Langworthy, R. (2008) Policing in America: A Balance of Forces, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall. Neyroud, P (2011), Review of Police Leadership and Training, London, HMSO. Savage, S. (2007) Police Reform: Forces for Change, Oxford, Oxford University Press
Skills for Justice (2009) A Business Case for the use of 'Pre‐Join' programmes by the Police Service, Sheffield, Skills for Justice
Winsor, T., P (2012) Independent Review of Police Officer and Staff Remuneration and Conditions, London, HMSO.
